My main argument is that Trout's amazing season did not lead his team to the playoffs and getting to the playoffs is the goal of the regular season. Hence, in real baseball terms, his season was not as valuable as someone who's team did make the playoffs.

I'm sorry but it's true. Not everything comes down to stats.

What else did Trout have to do? How much more valuable than Cabrera did he need to be to make up for his teammates and his division (things completely out of his control)? If he would have hit 90 homers and stole 100 bases but his team didn't make the playoffs would you still penalize him for the players around him and his division?

I'm saying that you can call it whatever you want and justify it however you want, it all comes down to the same thing. I'll put it in simple terms.

Player A and Player B both have amazing seasons.Player A's team doesn't make the playoffs.Player's B's team does.In terms of baseball, player B is a more valuable player as his contributions resulted in his team achieving the goal of the regular season.Even if Player A had a better statistical season, Player B is relatively more valuable to his team as his team acheived the goal of the regular season while Player A's team did not.

It may not be fair in terms of stats, but actual baseball isn't about stats - it's about winning. And if your team don't win, you just ain't as valuable as a guy producing really well on a team who is winning. Deal with it.

My main argument is that Trout's amazing season did not lead his team to the playoffs and getting to the playoffs is the goal of the regular season. Hence, in real baseball terms, his season was not as valuable as someone who's team did make the playoffs.

I'm sorry but it's true. Not everything comes down to stats.

What else did Trout have to do? How much more valuable than Cabrera did he need to be to make up for his teammates and his division (things completely out of his control)? If he would have hit 90 homers and stole 100 bases but his team didn't make the playoffs would you still penalize him for the players around him and his division?

I'm saying that you can call it whatever you want and justify it however you want, it all comes down to the same thing. I'll put it in simple terms.

Player A and Player B both have amazing seasons.Player A's team doesn't make the playoffs.Player's B's team does.In terms of baseball, player B is a more valuable player as his contributions resulted in his team achieving the goal of the regular season.Even if Player A had a better statistical season, Player B is relatively more valuable to his team as his team acheived the goal of the regular season while Player A's team did not.

It may not be fair in terms of stats, but actual baseball isn't about stats - it's about winning. And if your team don't win, you just ain't as valuable as a guy producing really well on a team who is winning. Deal with it.

This is the part that makes 0 sense. How? You know that Cabrera and Trout weren't the only ones playing right? How is player B more valuable when, since player A had the better year (contributed more to his team towards winning and making the playoffs), player B's team making the playoffs is CLEARLY more a result of the rest of his lineup, his pitching staff, his coaching staff and his division and schedule? Is the MVP not an individual award? Who had - individually - the most valuable season to his team? Trout, clearly. He batted equally to Cabrera, ran the bases exponentially better and played better defense at the hardest position. So how does Trout get punished for all of those things out of his control? You're literally giving Cabrera the MVP because his lineup, pitching staff, coaching staff and division made up for the fact that he didn't do as much for his team as Trout, and that because the Tigers (These are TEAMS we're talking about here in this INDIVIDUAL award) have all those advantages on the Angels that somehow makes Cabrera more valuable. That is insanely flawed reasoning.

BronXBombers51 wrote:What you're doing is awarding the MVP to MCab, not for what he did, but for what his teammates did. Baseball is not a 1-player sport. Detroit is not in the playoffs because of MCab, they are in the playoffs because of their entire roster. The Angels aren't NOT in the playoffs because of Trout, they aren't in the playoffs because their roster didn't win enough games.

No. I'm saying MCab should have the MVP for two reasons:1. He just achieved one of the most prestigious and difficult milestones in all of baseball, the triple crown.2. He helped his team make the playoffs, which is the goal of the regular season.

1. No debate there. We can argue over the actual usefulness of the Triple Crown all day but it is clearly a very hard milestone to achieve based on the fact that nobody has done it in 45 years. Cabrera had a great season and no one is saying otherwise.2. He helped his team win games, and as a by-product that led them to the playoffs as they won their division. Trout helped the Angels win more games than Cabrera did for the Tigers, but missed out on the playoffs by technicality. Cabrera doesn't receive sole credit for his team making the playoffs, it's a team achievement.

BronXBombers51 wrote:The MVP isn't a team award, it's an individual award. Mike Trout had a better season and contributed to more WINS than MCab did. Why should Trout be penalized because his teammates didn't play as well as MCab's did? Why should MCab be rewarded for having better teammates?

Trout contributed to more wins. Wow. Now he's watching the playoffs from a couch. So his wins mean all of.... nothing.

Once again, you're diminishing Trout's stats because his teammates weren't good enough to help the Angels make the playoffs. And you're rewarding Cabrera for having teammates that were good enough to get Detroit to the playoffs. Is having better teammates a skill? Why is Cabrera being rewarded for playing on a better team? Switch MCab and Trout and the Tigers would have won more games and the Angels less...how exactly is MCab more valuable?

BronXBombers51 wrote:And by the way, as I write this I remember that the Angels won more games than the Tigers did anyway. It was technicality that the Tigers made the playoffs and Angels didn't. So in this case, you're not even rewarding MCab for having a better team, you're rewarding him for the ineptness of the other teams in the AL Central and punishing Trout for the better teams of the AL West.

Oh darn. So life isn't all neat and clean like statistics? Get over it.

So then you're admitting that it's flawed? But you're giving MCab the MVP anyway? You're the one basing this on what team makes the playoffs, which has no point when determining an individual award. Why don't we give Robinson Cano the MVP...he was the best player on the Yankees and they won more games than any other AL team...he must be the most valuable since his team won 7 more games than MCab's did, right?

BronXBombers51 wrote:It makes no sense. The best player is also the most valuable player. Bar none.

Clearly false. Look at the history of MVP awards, often times the best player is not selected.

So you're saying that every player who has ever won the MVP has actually been the most valuable baseball player that year? Come on man. How can anyone be more valuable than the BEST PLAYER?! It's the most ridiculous argument ever. If you're the BEST...then you contributed the MOST VALUE. It doesn't matter if you have an all-star squad around you and win 110 games or have the Astros around you and win 50...you as an INDIVIDUAL player, have the most value of any single baseball player in the league.

What doesn't make sense is that you don't seem to understand that fantasy baseball is different from regular baseball.In fantasy baseball the MVP is the best player, period. That's because we only deal with statistics and statistics are what lead us to the playoffs and the championship. So the best player is obviously the most valuable player because... the best player puts up the best numbers.In regular baseball there's actually a game being played with actual people who are not made entirely out of mathematical statistics. Hence the concept of value cannot be reduced to numbers as numbers often don't correlate with victory. Instead, value is derived from the purpose of the game and how a player effects a team in relationship to the achievement of this purpose. Since the purpose of the regular season is to get into the postseason, the most valuable player is one who most helped his team do so.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not talking about fantasy baseball at all. I could care less where Trout ranked in fantasy baseball...his 5x5 totals mean just as little to me as Cabrera's do. If I were arguing over fantasy stats then I'd be giving MCab A LOT more consideration than I'd give him for the AL MVP.

In regards to your final sentence there...again...why not give the MVP to a player on a team that won the most games then? If all that matters is winning, then why would a player from a team who won THE LEAST amount of games of ANY AL playoff team win the MVP? Cano was the Yankees best player and he helped them get to 95 wins, which gave them the AL East and the best record. Why does Cabrera deserve it over him?

BronXBombers51 wrote:2. He helped his team win games, and as a by-product that led them to the playoffs as they won their division. Trout helped the Angels win more games than Cabrera did for the Tigers, but missed out on the playoffs by technicality. Cabrera doesn't receive sole credit for his team making the playoffs, it's a team achievement.

Once again, you're diminishing Trout's stats because his teammates weren't good enough to help the Angels make the playoffs. And you're rewarding Cabrera for having teammates that were good enough to get Detroit to the playoffs. Is having better teammates a skill? Why is Cabrera being rewarded for playing on a better team? Switch MCab and Trout and the Tigers would have won more games and the Angels less...how exactly is MCab more valuable?

This is exactly what I was trying to express with my post directly above yours. This is said far more concisely than I could put it. Well done

My main argument is that Trout's amazing season did not lead his team to the playoffs and getting to the playoffs is the goal of the regular season. Hence, in real baseball terms, his season was not as valuable as someone who's team did make the playoffs.

I'm sorry but it's true. Not everything comes down to stats.

If you're basing value on playoffs, Cano should be the MVP.Cano didn't have Verlander and Fielder.

This discussion sucks. Too many people trying to prove they can pull out more stupid esoteric stats than anyone else. You're already posting on a fantasy baseball message board, you don't need to prove that you don't have a girlfriend.

These % are formulated by taking (RBI - HR)/Runners On, so no bonus to Miggy for all his dongs.

Interestingly enough, some other ridiculously efficient RBI players this year were Adrian Gonzalez (20.55%), Chase Headley (19.63%), and Alfonso Soriano (19.39%), while others who had a huge number of opportunities, not so much...

Hunter Pence had the most runners on in the league this season (505), and only drove in 15.84% of them. Robinson Cano was 2nd with 476 runners, and only drove in a meager 12.82% of them. Of the Top 20 players among Runners On, only A-Gonz and Cabrera surpass the 20% mark, and just 5 players surpass 18%.

Cabrera may have had a ton of runners on this year (6th in the league, trailing teammate Prince Fielder who was 5th -- kudos to Austin Jackson), but he was also ridiculously efficient at driving those players in, which can't be said for many other players, like the aforementioned Cano and Pence.

These % are formulated by taking (RBI - HR)/Runners On, so no bonus to Miggy for all his dongs.

Interestingly enough, some other ridiculously efficient RBI players this year were Adrian Gonzalez (20.55%), Chase Headley (19.63%), and Alfonso Soriano (19.39%), while others who had a huge number of opportunities, not so much...

Hunter Pence had the most runners on in the league this season (505), and only drove in 15.84% of them. Robinson Cano was 2nd with 476 runners, and only drove in a meager 12.82% of them. Of the Top 20 players among Runners On, only A-Gonz and Cabrera surpass the 20% mark, and just 5 players surpass 18%.

Cabrera may have had a ton of runners on this year (6th in the league, trailing teammate Prince Fielder who was 5th -- kudos to Austin Jackson), but he was also ridiculously efficient at driving those players in, which can't be said for many other players, like the aforementioned Cano and Pence.

And this is exactly the kind of analysis Cabrera lobbyists need to push. But out of the countless hours of discussion and pages of reading, I've not once heard anyone mention this. All I hear about is the Triple Crown, how he carried his team to the playoffs, and how many runs he is knocking in. I also noticed this above average rate of driving guys in, but I still don't see it as enough to push him past Trout in my mind. Nice work for bringing this up man.